Rethinking library technical services

Rethinking Library Technical Services



Rethinking Library Technical Services
Redefining Our Profession for the Future
Edited by
Mary Beth Weber

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD
Lanham • Boulder • New York • London


Published by Rowman & Littlefield
A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
www.rowman.com
Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB
Copyright © 2015 by Rowman & Littlefield
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any
electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems,
without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote
passages in a review.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Rethinking library technical services : redefining our profession for the future / edited by Mary Beth
Weber.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-4422-4871-7 (cloth : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-1-4422-3863-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) – ISBN
978-1-4422-3864-0 (ebook)
1. Technical services (Libraries) I. Weber, Mary Beth, editor.
Z688.5.R48 2015
025'.02–dc23
2014044983
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Printed in the United States of America


Contents

Acknowledgments

vii

Introduction: What Is Technical Services?
Mary Beth Weber

ix

1
2
3
4

5
6

7
8

9

The Future of Traditional Technical Services
Julie Renee Moore and James L. Weinheimer
The State of Technical Services Today
Mary Beth Weber
The Current State of Bibliographic Description
Sylvia Hall-Ellis
Restructuring Monograph Acquisitions in Academic Libraries:
Innovative Strategies for the Twenty-First Century
Michael Luesebrink
The Management of Electronic Resources: An Overview
Alice Crosetto
Research Data and Linked Data: A New Future for Technical
Services?
Sherry Vellucci
Skills for the Future of Technical Services
Erin E. Boyd and Elyssa Gould
Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: The End of Technical Services? A
Think Piece on the Future of Technical Services
Amy K. Weiss
Interviews and Feedback from the Profession
Mary Beth Weber
v

1
17
29

57
73

85
123

135
151


vi

Contents

Index

181

About the Editor and Contributors

185


Acknowledgments

I’d like to acknowledge the following individuals:
• All the contributors who wrote chapters. Thank you for agreeing to be part
of this book and for your hard work. Some of you were strangers to me
before this project, and I’m glad to have made your acquaintance.
• My Rutgers colleague Melissa De Fino for providing feedback regarding
my ideas and my chapters. Thank you also for agreeing to be interviewed.
• My ALCTS colleagues Karen E. K. Brown, Erica Findley, Norm Medeiros, Sarah Peterson, and Ginger Williams. Thank you for agreeing to be
interviewed.
• My unit director Grace Agnew for her support and encouragement during
the writing process.
• My Rutgers colleague Fay Austin for agreeing to be interviewed and for
sharing her vision of the future.
• My daughters Christina and Nicole for their encouragement during the
long process of researching, writing, and editing.

vii



Introduction
What Is Technical Services?
Mary Beth Weber

DEFINING “TECHNICAL SERVICES”
Any discussion of technical services begins with how it is defined and what
work or departments it includes. Technical services holds a different meaning for each individual or institution. For some, technical services is a category of work that might include resource acquisition or description, and it
could also include end processing, bindery operations, or preservation. This
can include responsibilities not traditionally associated with technical services, such as reference or library instruction. An institution might not have a
specific “technical services” department, and resource description, acquisitions, and electronic resources management might report to systems, public
services, or another department. There is not a single answer for what constitutes technical services as it is unique to each library or institution and is

shaped by factors including the library or institution’s mission, available
staffing, financial considerations, and interaction with other departments or
operations within the organization. Gorman in Technical Services Today and
Tomorrow defines technical services as “All the tasks carried on in a library
that are concerned with the processing of library materials . . . to make them
accessible to the users of the library. Such processes include: ordering and
claiming; cataloguing and classification; serials control; database and catalogue maintenance; marking of processed materials; shelving, housing and
retrieval; . . . binding and preservation; [and] budgeting and planning for
these activities.” 1 See table 0.1 for an illustration of the diversity that exists
among libraries regarding technical services configurations and functions.
ix


x

Introduction

WHAT ASPECTS OF TECHNICAL SERVICES HAVE CHANGED?
Technical services operations have changed dramatically over the last ten to
fifteen years, much of this fueled by technological advances. How resources
are acquired and made available to users has drastically changed. Print, once
the predominant format, is still collected and cataloged, but the balance has
shifted in favor of electronic resources, which can serve more users and
simultaneously. Electronic resources have added features such as the ability
to highlight or bookmark passages online, generate citations, or create annotations. Gone is the need to acquire multiple copies of a title, borrow a title
by interlibrary loan (ILL), or limit the loan period for a title. New publication
models enable readers to view, download, or print just the content of interest
to them. Acquisitions and cataloging, for the most part, have transitioned
from operations that required many labor-intensive manual processes and
paper forms, frequently handled by a large staff, to operations that conduct

much of their business virtually using email and the Internet. Orders are
placed, received, and paid electronically. Cataloging has evolved to become
“resource description” and encompasses descriptions created using schemas
in addition to MARC and is used to describe born-digital resources or nontraditional resources for which MARC is not a good fit. Metadata may include
crowd-sourced descriptive information or resource description provided by
external partners, as in the case of research data or digital projects. Resource
description has progressed from elaborate AACR2 note-laden bibliographic
records to detail-laden description that includes links to authority files, websites, and supplemental resources as well as technical, rights, and preservation information. All of this has led to downsizing of staff, shifting work to
staff, moving work out of technical services in some cases, or revising position descriptions so that new hires can handle what administrators deem
important.
Collection development has moved into the electronic realm. Slips and
review plans have electronic counterparts that include reviews, author affiliations, and the ability to filter searches and orders by format. Typical of the
electronic information overload, slips may be saved for future use or sent to
colleagues. The evolution of collection development and management is reflected in this quote by Horava: “Traditionally, pride and prestige were imbued in the hundreds of individual daily actions of building a permanent
collection that would serve our community’s present and future needs with
reasonable effectiveness.” 2 As Horava points out, the bulk of collection development and management focused on print books. This is no longer the
case, as a variety of resources compete for their share of the budget. Electronic resources, particularly packages, databases, and PDA programs, have
taken center stage, with streaming media not far behind. In addition, an
institution’s scholarly output must be captured, described, and made avail-


Introduction

xi

Table 0.1.
Institution

Configuration

Website

Cornell University

Acquisitions and E-Resources
Licensing Issues; Automation;
Cataloging and Metadata
Services; Post-Cataloging
Services

/>
Georgetown
University

Acquisitions; Electronic
Resources and Serials;
Metadata Services;
Preservation

rary.
georgetown.edu/tech-services

University of
Minnesota

Monographs Acquisitions and />Cataloging 1; Electronic and
HomePage/
Print Serials; Specialized
Cataloging; Monographs
Acquisitions and Cataloging 2;

Health Sciences Libraries Tech
Services

SUNY Buffalo

Vocabulary Control and BISON />Database Management;
aboutus/contactus/cts.html
Continuing Resources Division;
Funds Management and
Technical Services Support;
Monographs Division;
Preservation

Princeton University Acquisitions Services;
Cataloging and Metadata
Services; Circulation; Holdings
Management and Shelving
Services

/>departments/tsd/tech/

University of Illinois
at UrbanaChampaign

Acquisitions; Content Access
/>Management; Digital Content
tsd/index.html
Creation; Collection
Management Services;
Preservation and Conservation

University of North
Carolina–Chapel
Hill

Resource Description and
Management; Monographic
Services; E-Resources and
Serials Management;
Preservation Department

/>dept/university-libraries/
technical-services-andsystems/

Stanford University

Access Services; Acquisitions;
Metadata; Preservation

/>depts/ts/


xii

Introduction

University of
Chicago

Continuing Resources

Cataloging; Continuing
Resources Orders; Data
Management Services;
Monographic Cataloging;
Monographic Orders; Piece
Processing; Receiving

/>about/departments/

University of Texas
at San Antonio

No department specifically
/>named Technical Services;
About/orgchart.pdf
Metadata and Collections
Support report to Systems;
Acquisitions and Serials
Control and Electronic
Resources report to Collections
and Curriculum Support

University of
Montana

Bibliographic Management
Services includes Cataloging
and Metadata Services;
Acquisitions Services;
Electronic Resources and

Rights Management Services;
Digitization Services

/>
able to users. Having adequate shelving space and weeding are not as relevant in the predominantly electronic environment. Weeding takes a different
twist in the electronic environment. Collection development, too, has moved
to a more user-centered model. Chadwell notes, “As we move forward and
make more progress in the transition from print to digital, it is clear that it is
going to be easier and easier to determine the impact that our collection
building has on our users’ daily lives. It is also going to be imperative that we
keep our users’ developmental, education and entertainment needs in mind—
more than we ever did in the print realm. . . . We may risk losing relevancy in
our users’ daily lives if we do not.” 3
Preservation continues to be an important component of technical services, and has shifted its focus to preserving rare and fragile materials
through digitization. It may seem that the inclination to preserve print has
been reduced when so much content is now available electronically, can be
acquired almost instantaneously (except in cases where license negotiation is
required), and can serve multiple users, including remote users. This is only
partly true, since the need to preserve an institution or community’s unique
cultural artifacts is extremely important, and the push to do so is evidenced
by the popularity of initiatives such as Preservation Week, which began in
2010 because 630 million items in collecting institutions require immediate
attention and care. 4 Print preservation may be deemed less critical due to
reliance on JSTOR or Portico. Some work, such as the need to bind materials


Introduction

xiii

(paperbacks, back issues of print periodicals, or scores, for example), has
greatly been reduced due to lack of funding or the transfer of funding to
emerging areas of need. Digital preservation is a very real and important
need for institutions and organizations that produce or archive content. The
move to digital and reliance on vendor-supplied services introduces new
considerations. Born-digital resources, including websites, are particularly at
risk since consideration is often not given to preserving and archiving this
material, ensuring access into the future. Technological obsolescence and
data decay are two concerns associated with digital preservation. Schottlaender notes, “The most immediate and significant consequence of the dynamic nature of digital information resources is that their preservation calls
for a much more active process than that required for analog resources.
Passive preservation (‘put it someplace cold and dark and throw away the
key’) simply will not work in the digital environment.” 5
Technical services work has switched to a user-centered model in which
librarians do not necessarily acquire and preserve what they anticipate users
might want and use or decide how resources are described. Choice has been
transferred to users. A recent example of this is exemplified by patron-driven
acquisitions (PDA), which have been implemented by libraries in a number
of ways and primarily for e-book purchases (there are also models for both
print and streaming media). However, this is not a case in which users select
whatever they want but instead access titles from a list compiled from a
profile based on collection areas and needs. Changes in patron behavior and
delivery of public services have driven collection development to acquire
more digital collections. The focus on the user has impacted resource description with initiatives like self-tagging in the public catalog and crowdsourced metadata. These initiatives introduce quality assurance (QA) considerations since they lack authority control or other controls that librarians
have painstakingly implemented to ensure that users can find, identify, select, and obtain the correct resources, and not have to choose between split
files of names or subject headings.
The role of the technical services librarian has evolved from someone
whose primary concentration was within the technical services department,
who might have supervised support staff, who perhaps had limited interactions with public services personnel. Technical services librarians were often
the only people who created orders, handled vendor negotiations, or provided
cataloging. In contrast to what was formerly considered a backroom operation for the meek, technical services librarians now negotiate licenses for

databases, serials packages, and e-book platforms. They partner with public
services operations to provide optimal access to resources. They advise on
displays in the public catalog and accommodate requests from public services librarians that will enhance search and retrieval of resources for users.
Resource Description and Access (RDA) has transformed the level of knowl-


xiv

Introduction

edge catalogers possess to enable them to provide resource description for a
range of materials using a schema-agnostic code that will enable sharing with
information communities beyond libraries. Some technical services work has
been transferred to high-level staff members due to factors including increased reliance on vendor-supplied services and emerging needs like institutional repositories and preserving an institution’s unique intellectual and
scholarly output. The economy and dismal job market has led to an increase
in highly educated individuals applying for entry-level support staff positions. Support staff positions and the requirements for these positions have
become increasingly sophisticated and in some cases have enabled librarians
to focus on new initiatives and challenges. In other cases, this has led to a
reduction in the number of librarians in a technical services operation, compromising access and other important functions that are at the core of any
library’s suite of services.
THE EVOLUTION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES
What, then, is technical services? What does it mean? How do we remain
relevant and avoid the fear of being eliminated or marginalized due to the
perception that some, if not all, of our work can be automated or outsourced,
can be handled by well-trained support staff, or, worse yet, is no longer
necessary? Change is an evolutionary process, and changes to technical services operations and their work are necessarily bad. To illustrate this point, it
is useful to look at some of the critical areas of need and resulting changes
that took place in the last ten to fifteen years. Pressing issues in technical
services circa 1999–2004, which may now seem trivial, included relocation
of technical services (within a library or offsite), perceived deprofessionalism of technical services, automating technical services processes, lack of a

website to document technical services workflows and procedures, macros
for technical services workstations, and “false dualism” (us versus them between public and technical services). These issues are epitomized in this
quote from Margaret Bing in 1999: “Suddenly, and without much warning,
cataloging is no longer considered a ‘public service,’ and is no longer worthy
of being considered a ‘core’ or necessary subject for study in our library and
information science schools. How could this have happened? Where and how
did cataloging suddenly become such a stepchild? How did the so-called
‘technical services’ suddenly become ‘non-public services’?” 6
Cost and quality of technical services has been a constant concern, evidenced by this quote from Jane Padham Ouderkirk’s 1999 paper “Technical
Services Task Assignment: From Macros to Collection Management Intelligent Agents”: “During the past five years, there has been a surge of agitation
about the cost and quality of technical services. Published opinions tend


Introduction

xv

toward either extreme—either that traditional technical services are sacrosanct and that the very survival of libraries is dependent on in-house staff
performing the work, or that technical services are no longer a core service
and should be contracted out in their entirety.” 7 Outsourcing was a thorny
issue as far back as 1999: “Outsourcing has been used selectively in libraries
for years. . . . Recently, it seems to be the panacea that could possibly
eliminate the need for an expensive technical services department.” 8 Some of
this sentiment continues to prevail. There are individuals who are confident
that the library will fail to provide services or build collections without
technical services, those who want to maintain technical services operations
in their current configuration, retain staffing levels, and maintain established
ways of working. To them, the current organization and workflows are effective, and they question the need to change them. They fail to consider the
future and how it may change their work as well as the mission and role of
libraries. This is in sharp contrast to those who declare MARC dead, RDA

useless, who state that no one uses the integrated library system since they
can use databases, discovery layers, or Google, and who are ready to embrace new modes of working without hesitation and might even consider
switching to public services. While technical services provides the infrastructure to enable public services, libraries have downsized or decentralized technical services while maintaining technical services functions, and have
thrived. Nadler stresses that the lines between traditional library roles are
blurring and that the library’s mission may more aptly be described by a
circle illustration than the component parts. 9
NEW ROLES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES LIBRARIANS
A review of position descriptions posted to the Autocat discussion list in the
early 2000s reveals the beginning of a shift from traditional technical services responsibilities to increasingly sophisticated endeavors. Positions
posted to Autocat in 2002 include Head of Database Development, Head of
Serials Cataloging, and Head of Technical Services/Webmaster. These are
for the most part traditional, and the last title hints at emerging needs. The
Head of Database Development handled catalog maintenance, original cataloging of print and nonprint resources, and authority work. The Head of
Serials Cataloging position required cataloging serials in all formats, maintaining currency in emerging issues in bibliographic control, and performing
original and complex cataloging. Positions posted in 2003 show a shift toward new technologies and the expertise required to handle them: Metadata
Librarian and E-Resources Librarian. In addition to original cataloging, the
Metadata Librarian position required expertise in projects that used XML,
EAD, FGDC, and Dublin Core. The E-Resources Librarian position stated


xvi

Introduction

that the successful individual’s responsibilities would include developing and
implementing an e-resource management database and registering and activating new e-resource titles for the library.
Rogers-Collins and Fowler are researching the evolution of technical services job titles and responsibilities. They presented their findings at the 2013
ALA Annual Conference at the ALCTS Role of the Professional Librarian in
Technical Services Interest Group meeting. Their goal was to determine
whether new “flashy” position titles included new or broader responsibilities

as compared to some mainstream and traditional positions. What they discovered is that there has been a change in job responsibilities to match the
new job titles and current environment. Other types of positions (Digital
Applications Librarian, for example) did not exist five or ten years ago. New
roles for technical services librarians include data management services, increasing responsibility for institutional repositories, a greater role in supporting and enabling public services, and increased collaboration with catalogs,
purchases, and provision of resource description. 10 Some of this collaboration has been realized through Cornell and Columbia’s 2CUL, the Greater
Western Library Alliance’s shared e-books initiative, and a collaborative
cataloging project between CIC member libraries to share language expertise.
PREPARING FOR AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE
Creative Solutions to Challenges
Creative solutions for challenging problems often are developed by technical
services librarians. Terry Reese created MarcEdit, Eric Lease Morgan developed the now defunct Mr. Serials, and Deborah Fritz created Metadata in
Many Metadata Formats (RIMMF) to aid catalogers with learning and using
RDA. Other examples include virtual teams that provide triage to cooperatively solve problems, and using a LibGuide to communicate technical services policies to public services colleagues. 11 Do technical services librarians
have the ability to visualize the future and what role they might play? Are
they proactive and forwarding thinking? Or are they short-sighted and reactive, not responding to change until it is upon them? They can set the tone for
change, influence vendor offerings, and vow not to take a passive role within
their profession. There will also be trade-offs, and they must accept these
changes to prepare for a future in which funding for education, including
libraries, is threatened. For example, full-level, “Cadillac” cataloging with
numerous elaborate descriptive notes may no longer be practical given staffing constraints and competing priorities. Approval plans and standing/recurring orders and the expertise and time required to manage them may no


Introduction

xvii

longer be needed in light of Patron Driven Acquisitions and other collection
development models.
Determining New Skills for an Uncertain Future
The final consideration for technical services librarians is to determine what

new skills are needed. How can technical services librarians prepare for an
uncertain future? What should library science programs do to train new librarians? Many master’s programs do not require cataloging or technical
services courses. This is a source of concern with technical services librarians and was an issue as far back as 1999, as evidenced by this quote from
Bing: “I have not heard of any school suggesting that its general reference
courses be eliminated, yet how can it be that something so vital to the organization of libraries as the development of its catalog be considered a nonessential discipline?” 12 Rogers-Collins and Fowler are considering the following questions for the next steps of their research, which addresses future
technical services librarians: Are master’s-level library science programs
preparing graduates for professional responsibilities? Are students interested
in technical services as a career? If the work/skills that technical services
librarians have acquired in library school are being shifted to support staff,
what is the value of the MLS for technical services librarians? 13
The chapters in this book cover a variety of issues relevant to technical
services as we face an uncertain future and constant change. These issues
include the current state of technical services and how we might influence
the outcome of vendor-provided offerings, the future of “traditional” cataloging work, MARC and RDA, weeding and inventory control in an electronic
environment, research data and its role, and the skills needed for the future of
technical services. These chapters are written by a diverse and talented group
of technical services librarians who bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise to their chapters. This book also includes interviews with technical services librarians who are leaders in the profession regarding issues that surround the future of technical services and our work.
NOTES
1. Michael Gorman, Technical Services Today and Tomorrow (Westport, CT: Libraries
Unlimited, 1998), 3–4.
2. Tony Horava, “Challenges and Possibilities for Collection Management in a Digital
Age,” Library Resources & Technical Services 54, no. 3 (2014): 143.
3. Faye A. Chadwell, “What’s Next for Collection Management and Managers? UserCentered Collection Management,” Collection Management 34, no. 2 (2009): 76–77.
4. “Preservation Week: Pass It On,” Association for Library Collections and Technical
Services, American Library Association, />5. Brian E. C. Schottlaender, “Guest Editorial: The Digital Preservation Imperative: An
Ecosystem View,” Library Resources & Technical Services 58, no. 1 (2014): 2.


xviii

Introduction

6. Margaret Bing, “The False Dualism,” Journal of Library Administration 29, no. 2
(2000): 24.
7. Jane Padham Ouderkirk, “Technical Services Task Assignment: From Macros to Collection Management Intelligent Agents,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 25, no. 5 (1999):
397.
8. Bing, “False Dualism,” 27.
9. Judith Nadler, “The Transformation of Research Libraries,” University of Chicago Libraries, 2013, />10. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee, “Environmental Scan 2013,” Association of College and Research Libraries, 2013, />content/publications/whitepapers/EnvironmentalScan13.pdf.
11. Mary Beth Weber and Gracemary Smulewitz, “Triage in the Digital Age,” paper presented at the Charleston Conference on Library Acquisitions, November 9, 2011, Charleston,
SC; Jennifer W. Bazeley and Becky Yoose, “Technical Services Transparency,” Library Resources & Technical Services 57, no. 2 (2013): 118–27.
12. Bing, “False Dualism,” 28.
13. Karen Rogers-Collins and Rhonda Fowler, “Do ‘Traditional’ Technical Services Librarians Still Exist in Academic Libraries?,” presentation at the ALCTS Role of the Professional in
Technical Services Interest Group, American Library Association Annual Conference, Chicago, June 29, 2013.


Chapter One

The Future of Traditional
Technical Services
Julie Renee Moore and James L. Weinheimer

We are at a point in technical services librarianship where many of us acknowledge that with so many changes happening, with ideas flying, and new
standards swirling around us without any real assurance that any of them will
work or will help us to do a better and more efficient job, as staffing and
budgets are shrinking and resources are becoming more complex, it feels as
though the sky is falling. In this chapter, we share our thoughts and views on
the future of traditional technical services and discuss whether there is a
future for traditional cataloging, acquisitions, and technical services functions.
PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES
We first consider the purpose and functions of traditional technical services.

The main purpose of traditional technical services is to provide levels of
quality assurance for:
• the resources themselves (selection);
• ensuring that those resources can be found today as efficiently and effectively as possible (with a high level of precision and recall) in various
ways: by browsing, author, title, or subject;
• making certain that those materials will be findable in the future by enabling quick payment, providing appropriate shelving accommodation,
archiving rare materials, conserving fragile and damaged resources, etc.
(conservation, acquisitions, shelving).
1


2

Julie Renee Moore and James L. Weinheimer

TECHNICAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS
What are the traditional functions of technical services? Certainly, cataloging plays a central role in technical services and is at the heart of the library.
What service do catalogers provide that is central to the library’s core mission? In its most basic form, they help people to locate resources. The role of
the catalog librarian 1 remains the same as it historically has been; namely, to
describe resources so that users can fulfill the basic FRBR tasks (Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records, />functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records) and find, identify, select,
and obtain those relevant resources. The tools, rules, and metadata schemas
will continue to evolve, but the purpose remains the same.
There is a tendency to consider only current users, but we must also think
about the users who will seek human knowledge many years into the future.
(Note: Author Julie Moore’s background is in anthropology, and she views
her work as a catalog librarian as an extension of her passion for anthropology.) Catalog librarians play a vital role in preserving the human record. In
2010, Michael Gorman wrote, “Civilization and learning require the human
record to be organized, accessible, and preserved. Cataloguers play an important role in that great enterprise—an enterprise that is dedicated to no less a
purpose than ensuring the people of the future know what we know, thus

enabling them to add to that ever-expanding record.” 2
THE FUTURE IS LONGER THAN THE PAST
This phrase was included in a speaker’s slides for a program offered by the
Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS). The
speaker continued by stating:
Our work is situated in time. This implies that, first, while it is of course
necessary to act on the basis of present expectations and resources, policy and
practice decisions have multiple ripple effects extending further forward in
time than we are able to imagine. Second, remembering the continuity of
actions in time will help us to explore new ideas for improving access to
information resources, while continuing to understand and value the best of
our accomplishments to date. 3

From an anthropologist cataloger’s perspective, this resonates. We are organizing, making accessible, and preserving resources both for people in the
present and for people in the future. As catalogers, we must stay focused on
the future while acknowledging our past. We continually encounter bibliographic records from earlier times. This is a fact of life as standards have
evolved over time or as substandard records were added to our catalogs for


The Future of Traditional Technical Services

3

inventory projects or other short-term needs. It is critical to have an understanding of prior cataloging codes as well as the current code. We have a
very long history in cataloging, but the future is even longer.
Technical services and cataloging have been evolving from the beginning, something that seems to be a misconception among noncatalogers,
particularly administrators who fail to understand the need for cataloging.
For consistency’s sake, catalogers require “rules” (AACR) or now “instructions” (RDA: Resource Description and Access) and standards as guidelines
to inform their work. This consistency is important in moving into the future.
Machines can process data effectively only if it is consistent. It has been our

experience that noncatalogers fail to appreciate how much the rules (and now
instructions) have evolved over time. This has been impacted by the emergence of new formats and has been shaped by new access concerns prompted
by electronic resources. In addition, staffing (or lack thereof) has led to a
greater reliance on batchloading processes or vendor offerings. All of this in
turn has changed our work as catalogers. Much is left to “cataloger’s judgment,” which requires a great understanding of the rules and an even greater
knowledge and understanding of the history of how the rules have developed.
As Weitz wrote,
Those conjoined twins of the AACR rules and the MARC data structure, both
of which have persisted over more than four decades, have appeared to be
stable. But those who use the standards on a daily basis have an acute awareness of how much AACR and MARC have continued to evolve. In other
words, to an extent that non-catalogers are generally unaware, catalogers have
dealt with change constantly. As it turns out, catalogers have proven themselves to be as resilient and adaptable as either AACR or MARC. That resilience and adaptability will stand catalogers in good stead as we move from the
world of AACR to the world of RDA, Resource Description and Access. Those
qualities will come in just as handy as we also begin to evolve from MARC
toward a post-MARC data structure, whatever it may turn out to be. 4

Weitz eloquently continues:
When done conscientiously, cataloging has always been more art than science.
We catalog real-world resources that may or may not conform to the theories
that our rules try to codify. As I wrote in the introduction to my Cataloger’s
Judgment, “the world of stuff to catalog is so vast, so slippery, so surprising
that individual judgment will always enter into our decisions. . . . Catalogers
are thoughtful judges concerning matters of description and access.” 5 It is that
judgment leavened with imagination that has carried catalogers through these
decades of change. That same judgment and imagination will continue to stand
them in good stead through the era of Resource Description and Access
(RDA), and post-MARC data structure, and whatever future marvels the world
sends them to catalog. 6

4

Julie Renee Moore and James L. Weinheimer

Cataloging does not stand alone as a function in technical services. It is
midstream in an intertwining process that neither begins nor ends with cataloging. Whether it resides in technical services or public services, the beginning of this stream begins with selection and collection development. To
acquire what librarians (and others) have requested, resources pass through
the acquisitions functions to be ordered, purchased, delivered, and, for invoices, to be encumbered. Resources are then cataloged and provided with a
description and subject analysis (subject access points), and may include a
classification number. One of the most vital pieces of cataloging is what one
might call “quality control,” a large part of which is authority control. These
traditional functions look very different from how they looked twenty-five
years ago, or even five or ten years ago. They will continue to evolve as we
move into the future.
Looking into a future that includes primarily digital materials, we believe
that these traditional functions of technical services will continue to evolve;
however, these traditional functions will continue to exist in some form.
Even in the digital world, there will be a continued need to catalog and for
catalogers to provide description and access to the user, both the library user
of today and the library user in years to come. Library resources will continue to be selected, collected, and acquired, even if they are digital or electronic. As we move to the linked data environment, there will still be some form
of authority control (although it will likely be called something else), even if
the mechanism is pointing to an identifier rather than an actual Library of
Congress (LC) Name Authority File Record or Subject Authority File
Record, the concept will remain. Users will rediscover that they can find
materials more efficiently when the terms or names used are controlled.
While these functions might look very different, the authors are convinced
that these functions will continue to exist as we move into the future, into the
age of the MARC 21’s replacement (likely BIBFRAME), and while using
linked data.
THE NEED FOR COOPERATION

In the past, various methods and industries developed that helped libraries
with technical services functions (publishers and book jobbers for selection;
different standards for cataloging and access; standards for archives, conservation, and even shelving). All these methods involved cooperation among
libraries and the various industries. With the advent of the Internet, normal
(traditional) methods have broken down. For instance, publishers and libraries, once respected business associates, seem to have become bitter enemies.
This has been fueled in part by economic problems. Vendors are struggling
to maintain their share of the market, develop new services, and satisfy


The Future of Traditional Technical Services

5

investors. Librarians have seen their budgets continue to shrink, leading to
the elimination of critical resources that are important to their work (such as
authority control) and loss of staffing. Additionally (and perhaps most importantly), library core values and ethics have evolved to help ensure that librarians used their choices for the good of their communities and not their own
gain.
THE CHALLENGES
There are more materials than ever, or, perhaps more accurately, libraries
believe that they must provide a “single search box” that finds “everything.”
This is not an entirely new concept. In the nineteenth century, libraries tried
cataloging each article in every journal they collected (or, in other words,
providing a “single search” for everything through the catalog) but failed
because the workload could not be realistically sustained. That is when Poole
devised his index, and separate journal indexes were begun. In the past (and
currently), catalogers created in analytics for select book chapters or journal
articles to enable discovery of important pieces that reside in a larger work.
Another related circumstance is the “bound-with,” where one single-part
monograph is bound with another. Creating a bound-with binds together
separately published works into a single volume and may be used for monographs as well as serials. Therefore, we need to “link together several bibliographic records representing individual titles that physically exist in a single

container (i.e., a printed volume, microform, etc.). These titles have been
brought together locally or by a publisher. While some of these records could
represent analyzed titles, their defining feature is that they are bound together, and not kept separately on the shelves.” 7 When author Moore worked at
an academic law library in the late 1990s, the first legal monographic series
with many different titles was issued electronically on CD-ROM. The law
library purchased a giant CD-ROM tower. Moore created “parent” and “children” (or “host” and “guest”) bibliographic records for the catalog, so that
the public could still find the resources with the same efficiency and effectiveness as when locating them in print format. In current times, this may
sound ludicrous, but at the time (about fifteen years ago), it was a huge
innovative leap. Over time, there were new titles on the CD-ROMs every
month. New titles were added and old ones were deleted just as is seen with
contemporary e-book and e-journal packages.
Regarding the Internet, those were also revolutionary times in librarianship. It was an amazing stroke of genius in cataloging to create a MARC field
and subfield (856 $u) that could handle a URL so that the user could directly
access the electronic resource. Cataloging Internet resources was a source of
an even greater challenge with many new debates. Catalogers began debating